IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v100y2019i6p2445-2457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Predictors of Mutual Efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Michael C. Gearhart

Abstract

Objectives Collective efficacy has developed concurrently in both sociology and psychology. In sociology, collective efficacy is the process by which social cohesion is activated as informal social control. In psychology, collective efficacy is a construct that focuses on a group's belief in its ability to achieve shared goals. Mutual efficacy reflects group members' beliefs that collective action can be successful at achieving group goals. Mutual efficacy was developed as a bridge between the sociological and psychological conceptualizations of collective efficacy. Prior research supports mutual efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between social cohesion and informal social control. However, little is known about the individual and neighborhood‐level characteristics that predict mutual efficacy. Methods This study tests predictors of mutual efficacy using regression while accounting for clustering at the neighborhood level through the use of Huber–White sandwich estimators. Results Findings show that multiple factors influence mutual efficacy including social cohesion, resident mobility, income, and education. Conclusion Findings highlight the importance of building mutual efficacy through facilitating interactions among neighbors, increasing access to education, and fostering economic stability.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael C. Gearhart, 2019. "Testing Predictors of Mutual Efficacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(6), pages 2445-2457, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:6:p:2445-2457
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12688
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12688?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:6:p:2445-2457. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.